Actors, Paradigms, and Institutional Dynamics: The Theory of Social Rule Systems Applied to Radical Reforms

ACTORS, PARADIGMS, AND INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS: ¹

The Theory of Social Rule Systems Applied to Radical Reforms

Tom R. Burns and Marcus Carson

DECEMBER, 2000

Appears in Rogers Hollingsworth K.H. Muller, E.J. Hollingsworth (eds) Advancing Socio-Economics: An Institutionalist Perspective. Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford, 2002

We are grateful to Craig Calhoun, Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Mats Franzen, Rogers Hollingsorth, Mark Jacobs, Masoud

Kamali, Nora Machado, Bryan Pfaffenberger, Steve Saxonberg, and Nina Witoszek for their comments and suggestions on

parts of earlier versions of this article.

1. The Universality of Social Rule Systems and Rule Processes

Most human social activity – in all of its extraordinary variety – is organized and regulated by socially produced and reproduced rules and systems of rules. Such rules are not transcendental abstractions. They are embodied in groups and collectivities of people – in their language, customs and codes of conduct, norms, and laws and in the social institutions of the modern world, including family, community, market, business enterprises and government agencies. The making,

interpretation, and implementation of social rules are universal in human society,

as are their reformulation and transformation. Human agents (individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and other collectivities) produce, carry, and reform these systems of social rules, but this frequently takes place in ways they neither intend nor expect.

There is often a vigorous situational ”politics” to establishing, maintaining, and changing social rules and complexes of rules. Actors encounter resistance from others when they deviate from or seek to modify established rules. This sets the stage for the exercise of power either to enforce rules or to resist them, or to introduce new ones. Actors may disagree about, and struggle over, the definition or interpretation of the situation, the priority of the rule system(s) that apply, or the interpretation and adaptation of rules applied in the situation. Questions of power are central in our approach, since politics are typically associated with rule processes – especially those

organizing and regulating major economic and political institutitions. This includes not only the power to change or maintain social rules and institutional arrangements, but also the power

relationships and social control opportunities engendered by such arrangements. Many of the major struggles in human history revolve around the formation and reformation of core economic,

administrative, and political institutions of society, the particular rule regimes defining social relationships, roles, rights and authority, obligations and duties, and the "rules of the game" in these and related domains. The world changes, making rule system implementation problematic (even in the case of systems that previously were highly effective and robust). Consequently, there are pressures on actors to adjust, adapt, reformulate and reform their organizing principles and rules.Also, rules never specify completely or regulate actions fully (even in the most elaborate rituals and dramaturgical settings). The implementation of rules – and the maintenance of some order – always calls for cumulative experience, adjustment, adaptation, etc. In such ways, normative and institutional innovation is generated. There is a continual interplay – a dialectic, if you will – between the regulated and the unregulated (Lotman, 1975). Social situations – in continual flux and flow – persistently challenge human efforts to regulate and to maintain order. By means of rule systems and through the reform of established systems, social actors try to impose order on a changing, unstable, and sometimes chaotic world.

While social rule systems undergird much of the order of social life, not all regularities or patterns of social activity are explainable – or understandable – solely in terms of social rules.

Situational conditions may block the implementation of particular rules and rule systems in social activities or make it costly to do so. By shaping action opportunities and interaction possibilities, ecological and physical factors limit the range of potential rules that can be implemented and institutionalized in practice. Because concrete material conditions constrain actors from

implementing established rules in most situations, the actors are forced to adapt them. They may in

some instances even be compelled – or strongly motivated – to radically transform or replace them

in order to increase effectiveness, to achieve major gains, or avoid substantial losses. Thus, at the

same time that social rule systems strongly influence actions and interactions, they are formed and

reformed by the actors involved. Human agency is manifest in this dialectical process, with

particular actors having their specific competencies and endowments, their situational analyses, interpretations, and strategic responses to immediate pushes and pulls to which they are subject.

The implementation or application of rules and rule systems is often problematic and requires special cognitive and practical skills – a complex process in its own right (see Burns and Gomolinska (2000a, 2000b) on rule-following, rule application, and the realization of rules in practice). Actors’ cognitive and normative modes of analysis and judgment through which they apply or implement rules are organized through a shared, operative institutional paradigm. The latter includes not only knowledge of the rule system but also interpretative rules and learned capacities for semantic and pragmatic judgments relating to the application of the system. The operative paradigm mediates between an abstract and often ideal(ized) rule system, on the one hand, and concrete situations in which actors implement or realize a rule system and its practices, on the other. In a word, they situate or contextualize abstract rules in relevant action situations.

Social rule system theory formulates and applies an approach to the description and analysis of institutions such as bureaucracy, markets, political systems, and science – major orders in

modern societies. This entails more than a study of social structure, or a contribution to neo- institutionalism. It is a theory that analyses the links between social structure in the form of

particular institutional arrangements including role relationships, on the one hand, and social action and social interaction, on the other. The theory shows, for example, in what ways markets and bureaucracies are organized and regulated by social rules at the same time that actors, both inside and outside these institutions, maintain or change the organizing principles and rules through their actions and interactions.

This article focuses particularly on processes of radical rule change and institutional dynamics where human agency plays a key role. An important feature of such change are the mechanisms – and consequences – of institutional reform and transformation.

2. Social Rules and the Patterning of Action

Social rule systems play a key role on all levels of human interaction. They provide more than potential constraints on action possibilities. They also generate opportunities for social actors to behave in ways that would otherwise be impossible, for instance, to coordinate with others, to mobilize and to gain systematic access to strategic resources, to command and allocate substantial human and physical resources, and to solve complex social problems by organizing collective actions. In guiding and regulating interaction, social rules give behavior recognizable, characteristic patterns, and make such patterns understandable and meaningful for those who share in the rule knowledge.

On the macro-level of culture and institutional arrangements, we speak of rule system complexes: language, cultural codes and forms, institutional arrangements, shared paradigms, norms and “rules of the game”.

On the actor level, we refer to roles, particular norms, strategies, action paradigms, and social grammars (for example, procedures of order, turntaking, and voting in committees and democratic bodies).

Social grammars of action are associated with culturally defined roles and institutional domains, indicating particular ways of thinking and acting. In that sense, the grammars are both social and conventional. For instance, in the case of gift giving or reciprocity in defined social relationships, actors display a competence in knowing when a gift should be given or not, how much it should be worth, or, if one should fail to give it or if it lies under the appropriate value, what excuses, defenses and justifications might be acceptable.

Someone ignorant of these rules, e.g. a child or someone from a totally different culture would

obviously make mistakes (for which they would probably be excused by others). Similarly, in the

case of "making a promise," rule knowledge indicates under what circumstances a promise may or

may not legitimately be broken – or at least the sort of breach of a promise that might be considered

acceptable (Cavell, 1979:294). In guiding and regulating interaction, the rules give behavior

recognizable, characteristic patterns

– making the patterns understandable and meaningfull for those sharing in the rule knowledge. Shared rules are the major basis for knowledgeable actors to derive, or to generate, similar situational expectations. They also provide a frame of reference and categories, enabling participants to readily communicate about and to analyze social activities and events. In such ways, uncertainty is reduced, predictability is increased. This is so even in complex situations with multiple actors playing different roles and engaging in a variety of interaction patterns. As Harre and Secord (1972:12) point out, “It is the self-monitoring following of rules and plans that we believe to be the social scientific analogue of the working of generative causal mechanisms in the processes which produce the non-random patterns studied by natural scientists.”

Social rule systems play then an important role in cognitive processes, in part by enabling actors to organize and to frame perceptions in a given institutional setting or domain. On the basis of a more or less a common rule system, questions such as the following can be intersubjectively and collectively answered: what is going on in this situation; what kind of activity is this; who is who in the situation, what specific roles are they playing; what is being done; why is this being done? The participating actors – as well as knowledgeable observers – can understand the situation in intersubjective ways. In a certain sense, they can simulate and predict what will happen in the interactions on the basis of the applied rules. Hence, our notion of rule-based paradigms that are interpretative schemes but also the concrete basis for actors to plan and judge actions and interactions.

Social rules are also important in normative and moral communications about social action and interaction. Participants refer to the rules in giving accounts, in justifying or criticizing what is being done (or not done), in arguing for what should or should not be done, and also in their social attribution of who should or should not be blamed for performance failures, or credited with

success. Actors also exploit rules when they give accounts in order to try to justify certain actions or failures to act, as part of a strategy to gain legitimacy, or to convince others that particular actions are "right and proper" in the context.

So called formal rules are found in sacred books, legal codes, handbooks of rules and regulations, or in the design of organizations or technologies that an elite or dominant group seeks to impose in a particular social setting. For instance, a formal organization such as a bureaucracy consists of, among other features, a well-defined hierarchical authority structure, explicit goals and policies, and clearcut specialization of function or division of labor. Informal rules appear less

"legislated" and more "spontaneous" than formal rules. They are generated and reproduced in ongoing interactions. The extent to which the formal and informal rule systems diverge or

contradict one another varies. Numerous organizational studies have revealed that official, formal rules are not always those that operate in practice. In some cases the informal unwritten rules not only contadict formal rules but take precedence over them under some conditions. Informal rules emerge for a variety of reasons. In part, formal rules fail to completely specify action (that is provide complete directions) or to cover all relevant (or emergent) situations. The situations (in which rules are applied or implemented) are particularistic, even idiosyncratic, whereas formal rules of behavior are more or less general. In some situations (expecially emergent or new

situations), actors may be uncertain or disagree about which rules apply or about the ways in which to apply them. They engage in situational analyses and rule modification, or even rule innovation out of which emerge informal rules (which may be formalized later).

However strongly actions are patterned by rules, social life is sufficiently complex that some imagination and interpretation are required in applying rules to a specific action and

interaction context. Imagination generates variability in action from actor to actor, and even for a given actor over time. Rules are also interpreted in their application. Even highly formalized, systematic rules such as laws and written rules of bureaucracy are never complete in their

specification. They have to be interpreted and applied using situational information and knowledge.

Adaptations and improvisations are common, even in the most formally organized institutions. In this sense, rules are generative, and their interpretation and implementation more or less context- dependent. Interpretation varies across a population sharing a rule system, and also across time. In addition, rules will sometimes be learned or implemented with error, providing in some cases an incorrect model for others. Both of these factors result in variability. Moreover, if an action at deviance with cultural rules or standard interpretations is perceived by other actors as advantageous, it may be copied. Its ability to spread, providing a new cultural variant, depends on three factors: (1) its perceived desirability; (2) the ability of those with interests in the content of the rule system to sanction the use of the new rule (and to overcome the opposition of others); (3) the difficulty in acquiring, retaining and implementing a rule at variance with core key social rules of the cultural system (Burns and Dietz, 1992a).

3. Adherence to and Compliance with Social Rules

Contemporary social science research points up that social rule systems such as cultural formations, institutional arrangements, and norms are ubiquitous and regulative of much social action and interaction. However, actors adhere to and implement rule and rule systems to varying degrees.

Compliance with, or refusal to comply with, particular rules are complicated cognitive and

normative processes. Typically, there are diverse reasons for rule compliance. Several of the most important factors are:

(1)Interest factors and instrumentalism (stressed by public choice and Marxist perspectives on self-interested behavior). Actors may advocate rules to gain benefits or to avoid losses. For

instance, interest groups introduce particular rules to exclude others from an institutionalized sphere or domain, whether a market, professional community or political system, thereby attaining a monopoly or exclusive sphere for themselves and other "in-siders". Such exclusionary rules may be enforced either by the authority of the state and/or by private authority (in the modern world private authority is often backed up by the state).

(2) Identity and status. Adherence to rules – and commitment to their realization – may be connected to an actor's identity, role, or status, and the desire to represent self as identified by or committed to particular rules. Elite actors are especially likely to be committed to a particular rule regime -- not only because of vested material interests but because their identity, status, and

meaning as significant social agents are closely associated with the rule regime, which defines their material and/or spiritual worth. It follows from the above that a major motivation in maintaining (or changing rules) – e.g. roles or distributive rules – is to maintain or change their social status.

(3) Authoritative Legitimacy. Many rules are accepted and adhered to because persons or groups with social authority have defined or determined them, possibly by associating them with sacred principles or identifying their causal or symbolic relationship to actors' interests and status. In the contemporary world, we find the widespread institutionalization of abstract meta-rules of

compliance that orient people to accepting particular definitions of reality and rule systems

propagated by socially defined and often certified authorities, e.g. scientists and other experts. The authority may be scientific, religious, or political (for instance in the latter case, the fact that a democratic agency has determined the rules according to right and proper procedures). Certain rules may even be associated with God, the sacred, and, in general, those beings or things that actors stand in awe of, have great respect for, and may associate with or share in their charisma by adhering to or following their rules.

(4) Normative-Cognitive Order. Actors may follow rules – and try to ensure that others follow

them – because the rules fit into a cognitive frame for organizing their perceptions and making

sense of what is going on. Within any given institutional domain, particular rules or systems of

rules make sense. For example, in a market context, certain norms of exchange have emerged,

found support, and been institutionalized. They facilitate exchange, in part by reducing risks and

transaction costs. In a certain sense, there is something reasonable about them (Boudon, 1995). In many functioning relationships and institutions, the participating agents seek trust and a sense of cooperativeness and order. Stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc. violate basic principles of social order, of social solidarity and trust, and, therefore, are to a greater or lesser extent unacceptable.

They do not make sense in terms of the type of social relationship and development actors want or hope to develop. People react negatively – even in cases where they are not directly affected (that is, there are no direct apparent self-interests), because the order is disturbed, potentially

destabilized, and eroded.

(5) Social sanctions. Laws and formal organizational rules and regulations are typically backed up by specific social sanctions and designated agents assigned the responsibility and authority to enforce the rules. There are a variety of social controls and sanctions in any social group or organization which are intended to induce or motivate actors to adhere to or follow rules, ranging from coercion to more symbolic forms of social approval or disapproval, persuasion, and activation of commitments (in effect, "promises" that have already been made).

Social sanctioning (for example, by a moral community, or by an elite or their agents) may take the form of various types of social disapproval and symbolic sanctions as well as material and physical sanctions. Group or community norms are typically enforced through diffuse networks.

Group power rests in part on the individual's dependence on the group, and its ability to enable him or her to realize certain values or goals through the group (including the value of socialibility). In order to gain entrance or to remain in the group, one must comply with key group rules and role definitions. Exclusion from the group, if there are no alternative groups, becomes a powerful sanction.

(6) Inherent sanctions. Many rules, when adhered to in specific action settings, result in gains or payoffs that are inherent in following those rules, such as going with (or against) automobile traffic.

In many cases, the reasons for compliance are consequentialist. As Boudon (1996:20) points out: in automobile traffic, we adhere to or accept as right and proper traffic rules, in particular those relating to stopping, turning, etc. because without them, we recognize that the situation would be chaotic, dangerous, even catastrophric. Most technical rules, for example relating to operating machines or using tools, entail inherent sanctions. Following them is necessary (or considered necessary) for the proper functioning or performance of the technology, or achieving a certain desirable outcome or solution. Therefore, many technical rules are followed habitually. Disregard of or casualness in following the rules leads to failure, and even damage to the technology or to the actors involved. Because technical rules often have this compelling aspect to them, they can be used to gain acceptance, legitimacy, and resolve social conflicts, at the same time that they can advantage some actors and disadvantage others.

(7) Veil of ignorance. Actors may not know the consequences of rule compliance and follow rules because they are given, taken for granted, or believed generally to be right and proper. The benefits of adhering to some rule systems can, however, mask hidden costs. For example, adherence to stereotypical gender roles may produce an ease and certainty about what one "ought" to do, and elicit positive response from others, but it may also produce psychic conflicts and limit individual or collective development. Ignorance is one aspect of the cognitive frame actors utilize, or may derive from the type of complex situation in which they find themselves. Often data about the

consequences of implementing particular rule systems is not immediately available (or it concerns states of the world long in the future), and both internalized beliefs and authorities play a decisive role in addressing such states of ignorance. (9) Habits, routines, and scripts. Much rule-following behavior is unreflective and routine. Many social rules are unverbalized, tacit, that is, part of a collective subconscious of strategies, roles, and scripts learned early in life or career, and

reinforced in repeated social situations, for instance sex roles, or even many professional roles.

Of

particular importance is the fact that rule systems learned in early socialization are associated with

very basic values and meanings – even personal and collective identity – motivating at a deep emotional level commitment to the rules and a profound personal satisfaction in enacting them.

Conformity is then a matter of habitual, unreflected and taken-for-granted ways of doing things.

As indicated above, some social rules are enforced, others not: indeed, rules can be distinguished on the basis of the degree to which, and the circumstances under which, they are socially enforced or enforceable. Of course, regardless of the degree of enforceability, they may be complied with because of a desire for order, internal sanctions, or realizing one’s role and self- identity. Many rules that actors rigorously adhere to are not socially enforceable, but nevertheless actors utilize them in organizing social activities and in shaping social order. Harre and Secord (1972:17) emphasize the freedom of choice in relation to rules and roles:

The mechanistic model is strongly deterministic; the role-rule model is not.

Rules are not laws, they can be ignored or broken, if we admit that human beings are self-governing agents rather than objects controlled by

external forces, aware of themselves only as helpless spectators of the flow of physical causality.

In sum, actors conform to rule systems to varying degrees, depending on their identity or status, their knowledge of the rules, the meanings they attribute to them, the sanctions a group or organization imposes for noncompliance, the structure of situational incentives, and the degree competing or contradictory rules are activated in the situation, among other factors.

4. Institutions and Complex Institutional Arrangements

An institution is a complex of relationships, roles, and norms which constitute and regulate recurring interaction processes among participants in socially defined settings or domains. Any institution organizing people in such relationships may be conceptualized as an authoritative complex of rules or a rule regime (Burns et al, 1985; Burns and Flam, 1987). Institutions are exemplified by, for instance, family, a business organization or government agency, markets, democratic associations, and religious communities. Each structures and regulates social interactions in particular ways; there is a certain interaction logic to a given institution. Each institution as a rule regime provides a systematic, meaningful basis for actors to orient to one another and to organize and regulate their interactions, to frame, interpret, and to analyze their performances, and to produce commentaries and discourses, criticisms and justifications.Such a regime consists of a cluster of social relationships, roles, norms "rules of the game", etc. The system specifies to a greater or lesser extent who may or should participate, who is excluded, who may or should do what, when, where, and how, and in relation to whom. It organizes specified actor categories or roles vis-a-vis one another and defines their rights and obligations – including rules of command and obedience – and their access to and control over human and material resources.

More precisely: (1) An institution defines and constitutes a particular social order, namely positions and relationships, in part defining the actors (individuals and collectives) that are the legitimate or appropriate participants (who must, may, or might participate) in the domain, their rights and obligations vis-à-vis one another, and their access to and control over resources. In short, it consists of a system of authority and power; (2) It organizes, coordinates, and regulates social interaction in a particular domain or domains, defining contexts – specific settings and times – for constituting the institutional domain or sphere; (3) It provides a normative basis for appropriate behavior including the roles of the participants in that setting – their interactions and

institutionalized games – taking place in the institutional domain; (4) The rule complex provides a

cognitive basis for knowledgeable participants to interpret, understand and make sense of what goes

on in the institutional domain; (5) It also provides core values, norms and beliefs that are referred to in normative discourses, the giving and asking of accounts, the criticism and exoneration of actions and outcomes in the institutional domain. Finally, (6) an institution defines a complex of potential normative equilibria which function as “focal points” or “coordinators” (Schelling, 1963; Burns and Gomolinska, 2001).

Most modern institutions such as business enterprises, government agencies, democratic associations, religious congregations, scientific communities, or markets are organized and

regulated in relatively separate autonomous spheres or domains, each distinguishable from others on the basis of distinctive rule complexes and each of which contributes to making up a specific moral order operating in terms of its own rationality or social logic). The actors engaged in an institutional domain are oriented to the rule system(s) that has (have) legitimacy in the context and utilize it (them) in coordinating, regulating, and talking about their social transactions.

Many modern social organizations consists of multi-institutional complexes. These combine, for instance, different types of institutionalized relationships such as market, administration,

collegial, and democratic association as well as various types of informal networks. When different institutional types are linked or integrated into multi-institutional complexes, the resultant structure necessarily entails gaps and zones of incongruence and tension at the interfaces of the different organizing modes and social relationships (Machado and Burns, 1998). For instance, a modern university consists of scientific and scholarly communities, administration, democratic bodies with elected leaders, and internal as well as external market relationships. Such diverse organizing modes are common in most complex organizations or inter-institutional complexes. Rule system theory identifies several of the institutional strategies and arrangements including rituals, non-task- oriented discourses, and mediating or buffer roles that actors develop and institutionalize in dealing with contradiction and potential conflicts in complex, heterogeneous institutional arrangements (Machado and Burns, 1998). Moreover, it suggests that social order – the shaping of congruent, meaningful experiences and interactions – in complex organizations, as in most social life, builds not only on rational considerations but on non-rational foundations such as rituals and non-

instrumental discourses. These contribute to maintaining social order and providing a stable context, which is essential for “rational” decision-making and action.

5. Paradigms and Institutional Arrangements.

The actors involved in a given institution use their institutional knowledge of relationships, roles, norms, and procedures to guide and organize their actions and interactions. But they also use it to understand and interpret what is going on, to plan and simulate scenarios, and to refer to in making commentaries and in giving and asking for accounts. Rule system theory stresses rule-based cognitive processes such as framing, contextualizing, and classifying objects, persons, and actions in a relevant or meaningful way (Burns and Engdahl, 1998a,1998b; Burns and Gomolinska 2000a, 2001; Carson, 1999, 2000a; Nylander, 2000). It also considers the production of appropriate or meaningful accounts, discourses, and commentaries in the context of the given institution.

Institutional rule knowledge is combined with other types of knowledge as actors engage in judgment, planning, interpretation, innovation, and application of rules. Such organization of rule knowledge and its applications – in perceptions, judgments, and actions – is accomplished through a shared cognitive-normative frame which we refer to as an institutional paradigm. It provides people a basis on which to organize and to define and try to solve concrete problems of

performance and production in a given institutional domain (others using paradigm in this sense are

Carson, 2000a, 2000b; Dosi, 1984; Dryzek, 1996; Gitahy, 2000; Perez, 1985).

Our conception

is builds upon institutional concepts such as rules and procedures as well as social relationships

such as those of authority; it concerns the organization and regulation of concrete activities and the

solution of concrete problems of action as much as the modeling and explanation of events. In acting and interacting within an institutional arrangement, social agents operate with one or more institutional paradigms as well as supportive discourses.

An operative institutional paradigm – associated with a particular institution – is a cognitive-normative framework which institutional participants use to contextualize and situate a rule system in concrete settings, as they define, make interpretations, carry out situational analyses, and make judgments concerning the application or implementation of the rule regime, or parts of it.

At the core of such a paradigm is the rule regime itself – that is, the key organizing principles, values, norms, relationships, and roles that give form and identity to the institution – used in constituting and regulating interactions in appropriate settings. The rules and principles in the core are idealized in a certain sense.

Also found in such a paradigm – but more peripherally and discretionary – are the rules of interpretation, rules defining practical situational conditions to take into account, “rules of thumb,” and other rules for making adjustments or adaptations of core rules and principles in some settings.

In sum, paradigms are actors’ operative cognitive models, used in their concrete judgments and interactions to contextualize institutional rules, to conduct situational analyses, and to apply rules in their actions and interactions in the institutional domain. These operative models are constructed on the basis of core institutional rules and principles and incorporate complexes of beliefs, classification schemes, normative ideas, and rules of thumb which are used in

conceptualizing and judging key institutional situations and processes, relevant problems, and possible solutions for dealing with key problems.

Single rules or rule systems are adjusted and compromised in concrete, practical interaction situations, taking into account situational or local conditions. Also, integrated into the operative paradigm – in its periphery – are rules of pragmatic interpretation and analysis, local styles and other cultural elements including values, norms, special social relationships that are not right and proper or legitimate parts of the institutional regime. The core and periphery components of an operative institutional paradigm are indicated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

Clearly, (an idealized) system of rules, is part and parcel of the paradigm is institutionalized in particular arrangements and practices.

Although obviously interlocked, institutions and paradigms are affected differently in change processes, particularly those driven by tangible institutional problems. If, on the one hand, actors have a great investment in protecting the concrete institutional arrangements themselves, for reasons of power, security, predictability, and so on, rules are

tightened, enforcement mechanisms are deployed, even strengthened (as in Michels’s Iron Law of

Oligarchy (1962)). The emphasis is on protecting ideas and principles that are already materialized,

and sometimes this is done at great cost. If, on the other hand, actors have – or would like to make -

- a much greater investment in solving a problem(s) that the institutional arrangement and its

operating paradigm have proven unable to manage, the actions taken are quite different. Rules are

consciously broken in spite of possible or likely sanctions, supporters are rallied around possibilities

rather than certainties, and short-term, concrete interests may be set aside in favor of long term

possibilities. There is a substantial shift in risk-taking orientations.

PERIPHERY: SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS USED IN CONTEXTUALIZING, SITUATING,

INTERPRETING, ADJUSTING THE RULE REGIME.

CORE:

INSTITUTIONAL RULE REGIME

OPERATIVE

INSTITUTIONAL PARADIGM FOR IMPLEMENTING OR

REALIZING A RULE REGIME IN

APPROPRIATE CONTEXTS.

Figure 1: Core and Periphery of Operative Institutional Paradigms

5.1 OPERATIVE I NSTITUTIONAL P ARADIGM AND ITS GAPS AND ANOMALIES

An institutional paradigm contains, among other things, a generally coherent complex of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, systems of classification, organizing principles, norms and procedures, and practical rules of thumb. It provides the cognitive basis upon which actors conceptualize, make decisions, and act together within an institutional domain. Within a given paradigm, actors mediate between abstract institutional principles and rules, on the one hand, and concrete interaction settings in which the rule system is to be implemented or realized in practice, on the other hand.

Such mediation takes form in a variety of activities, in particular, (1) In implementing or following rules, actors engage in processes of judgment, and make use of situational and interpretative

knowledge for contextualizing and interpreting rules, ultimately applying them in order to organize and regulate their interactions. (2) Actors use the institutional paradigm to interpret and understand what is going on (and also to define what should or should not be going on). It is the basis upon which actors generate concrete, contextualized expectations, predictions, and simulations. (3) Actors concretely judge actions in the situation on the basis of appropriate rules, and thus can judge whether or not rule violation or deviance has taken place. (4) An institutional paradigm is used in identifying, defining and classifying institutional problems (and “non-problems”), potential

solutions (including the use of appropriate and effective technologies and techniques), and source(s) of authority in the institutional arrangement. These judgments play a key role in the giving and asking of accounts and in justifying or legitimizing actions (see below).

Each paradigm is grounded in a particular set of fundamental assumptions and beliefs that a group of actors shares about reality.

It forms the frame for organizing their perceptions, judgments, and action that determines which phenomena are included in the picture – and which are excluded (Berger and Luckmann, 1969; Kuhn, 1970; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). It is also the basis for operationally assigning values to certain actions and conditions, and encouraging and pursuing certain activities (or discouraging or even prohibiting others). A paradigm, as a collectively produced and maintained entity, is usually changed with reluctance – collective identities and interests are often closely associated with it, making difficult changes that are judged to alter its core elements that give it and the concrete institutional practices their identity. A paradigm whose core principles, values, and normative practices are deeply embodied in concrete institutional and identity-giving practices will tend to be durable and resilient.

Much of the day-to-day work of actors in a given institutional arrangement has the effect of cementing and normalizing the operative paradigm in a sense similar to that which Kuhn (1970) characterized as “normal science.” Problems appear manageable, there is a high degree of

consensus, there is no sense of crisis or bold challenge. A paradigm necessarily focuses attention on certain phenomena while obscuring others – it is used to select and also restructure data so that they fit with its basic assumptions, categories, and rules.

Because of the paradigm’s selectivity, its biased rules of interpretation, and its bounded character, the actors utilizing it experience difficulties understanding and explaining, or knowing how to deal in practical ways with some types of

situation or problem. Some of these problems arise in connection with, or as a by-product of, actions guided by the paradigm itself. That is, meaningful action – viewed from the perspective of the paradigm – generates anomalies and failures, which some participates define as problems (Spector and Kitsuse, 1987). These problems are not only cognitive but practical. Problems fail to be recognized or adequately addressed. Goals fail to be achieved. The stage is set for

entrepreneurial actors to suggest new approaches and solutions, although these need not be radical.

In general, in the context of a complex institution and a dynamic environment, some

entrepreneurial actors creatively press limits and challenge what have been normal practices. They

initiate and foster processes of change and give them direction. Certain developments – gaps and anomalies – inevitably emerge that can neither be adequately understood nor dealt with within the framework provided by the paradigm. These developments may be initially explained away or simply ignored. Or attempts may be made to understand and to deal with them through ad hoc interpretations and adaptations. However, if their effects are sufficiently powerful, or if they attract a sufficiently influential constituency of actors, the anomalies may motivate either major

reformulation of the existing paradigm – or its replacement by a competing paradigm. The process of paradigm shift may entail both political struggle and confrontation (Hall, 1992) or may entail a more gradual and negotiated change with marginal conflicts and piecemeal adjustments (Coleman et al, 1997).

Paradigm shift or replacement is not a purely cognitive development. It is

associated with reorientation in actors’ choices and actions, in their definitions of and practical attempts to deal with problems, and is expressed over time in concrete changes in the institutional arrangements and everyday practices.

One operative institutional paradigm can be distinguished from another paradigm in that it entails a distinctly different, and often incommensurable, way of framing, conceptualizing, judging, and acting in relation to particular classes of “problems” and “issues.” This becomes of particular interest when actors guided by alternative paradigms compete with one another or each tries to impose her respective paradigm in a given institutional domain. Two competing institutional paradigms – each with its reality-defining features and discourses – may concern, for instance,

“bureaucratic hierarchy” versus “democratic procedure,” or “market problem-solving” versus “re- distributive or welfare problem-solving” (see later).

5.2 Institutional Paradigms and Their Discourses in an Institutional Context

An operative institutional paradigm is communicated and articulated through discourses – both descriptive narratives and conceptual metaphors – and through social action and interaction. These discourses and actions define social problems and potential solution complexes, and suggest the assignment of authority and responsibility in a given or appropriate area of activity. Through their characterizations of goals and purposes, and accounts of institutional performance – successes as well as failures – actors express or reveal their common paradigm. It is the means by which they perceive and judge the world, and organize, understand, and regulate their activities in the institutional domain.

Particular institutional discourses, serving as a means of describing, interpreting, and dealing with reality, are inspired and organized – directed and purposeful – on the basis of the institutional paradigm. The discourses indicate, among other things, parameters of acceptable problems, leaders, and performance. For instance, they may concern whether the current performance or status of the institution represents improvement or deterioration over earlier performance or status. In general, an institutional paradigm encompasses a range of institutional practices and strategies for addressing issues considered to be problems and for establishing authority for how to address various types of problems.

Key Components of Discourse

Paradigms are expressed and articulated, in part, through discourses concerning institutional

“problems” or “threats” and “crisis”, the expressed distribution of institutional “authority and

responsibility”, the distribution of “expert authority”, and “appropriate solutions” to deal with

defined problems. The discourses refer to written rules and laws, and deeper, underlying principles

that define the location and other particulars of rule-making authority, and set(s) of institutional

strategies and practices for dealing with specific types of problems and issues (concerning public

policy areas, see Sutton, 1998; Carson, 2000a; Carson, 2000b). The approach outlined here analyzes

the ways in which discourses, on the one hand, express and articulate a paradigm and, on the other

hand, frame and define reality (see, for example, Spector and Kitsuse, 1987; Hardy and Phillips, 1999; Kemeny, 1999). Discourses can be analyzed in terms of the categories or complexes of definitions they contain (Carson, 1999; 2000a, 2000b; Sutton, 1998):

(1) Problem/Issue Complexes – definition and characterization of key issues/problems, including characterizations of who is affected and how, and the broad categorizations of an issue or problem as social, moral, economic, political, etc. Here we find causal narratives – or narratives and statements that contain either implicit or explicit assumptions about the sources or causes of public issues and problems as well as narratives of threat which indicate or describe who is affected and the likely consequences if it is not “solved”.

(2) Distribution of Expert Authority – the location and distribution of legitimate sources considered to be knowledgeable and authoritative on the issue or issues. It also defines who has the legitimacy to define a particular problem into – or out of – existence or to redefine an issue or problem into another institutional domain.

(3) Distribution of Problem Solving Authority and Responsibility – the location and distribution of appropriate problem-solving responsibility and authority that is, the authority which has the formal or informal responsibility for addressing and/or resolving the issues or problems. Who is the legitimate authority (or authorities) for addressing and resolving the problem(s). This includes both institutional authority and legitimacy for making policy, and the responsibility for taking specific corrective action. This is related to expertise, but equally important, is grounded in the social roles and norms for determining who should be empowered to pass judgment, adopt new problem- solving strategies, or initiate necessary action on behalf of other members of the institution.

(4) Solution Complexes, the form and range of acceptable solutions to institutional problems.

Solution complexes include the particular way(s) in which the resolution of an issue or problem should be constructed, including the use of appropriate, available institutional practices,

technologies, and strategies. It has been observed that problems are often deliberately defined in ways that permit an issue to land in particular parts of an institutional apparatus (Nylander, 2000).

This, in turn, dictates the range of both possible and likely responses (Sutton, 1998).

One challenge to discourse analysis is distinguishing between the “talk” that has weight and that which does not. One method is to make this distinction by tracing discourses that have been 1) adopted by key actors, and manifested in their discourses and actions, and 2) reflected at the institutional level in public statements and accounts, operating principles and rules, and/or organizational structure. Patterns of change are apparent whenever these discourses deviate in principle and content from previous ones. The processes by which paradigms shift and

transformation of institutional arrangements take place through interaction processes are examined in the following sections. The major principle in the analyses is that the formulation and diffusion of significant new paradigms accompany and underlie many, if not most, radical reforms and structural revolutions. They provide new points of departure for conceptualizing, organizing, and normalizing social orders.

6. Institutional Dynamics

Institutional change entails changes in the rules and/or enforcement activities so that different

patterns of action and interaction are encouraged and generated (Burns et al, 1985; Burns and Flam,

1987; Levi, 1990). Such changes may be initiated by various social agents. For instance, an elite

"legislates" an institutional change, or a social movement brings about change through coming to direct power or effectively pressuring and negotiating with a power elite. Changes may also be brought about through more dispersed processes, e.g. where an actor discovers a new technical or performance strategy and others copy the strategy, and, in this way, the rule innovation diffuses through social networks of communication and exchange.

In general, there are several mechanisms that explain rule formation and change: (a) A well- known and common motivator underlying initiatives to establish new policies, laws, or institutional arrangements is self-interest, that is, the pursuit of opportunities to make gains (economists refer to

“rent-seeking”) or to avoid losses through changing rules; (b) Actors mobilize and struggle to realize what they consider an institutional ideal, for instance, a principle of distributive justice or common good that can be more effectively or more reliably realized through reforming institutional arrangements; (c) Key actors or groups in an institution encounter normative failure or gaps in applying a rule system in an appropriate domain, and try to overcome the failure or gap. Such a development may arise because of the emergence and influence of new social values. For instance, the rise of more radical egalitarianism or the spread of the normative idea of citizen autonomy draws attention to particular legal and normative limitations or gaps and leads to demands for new legislation and institutional arrangements, for example to advance gender equality. New

technological developments often expose the limitations of existing laws and institutional arrangements. In the area of contemporary information technologies, existing laws concerning intellectual property rights have proven inadequate and have led to a number of reform efforts.

Another example concerns internet developments that have led to demands for increased regulation, because of the ready availability on the World Wide Web of pornography, extremist political and racist pages, among other problems. Or new medical technologies – organ transplantation, life support technologies, and the new genetics – call for new normative principles, legislation, and institutional arrangements (Machado, 1998; Machado and Burns, 2000, 2001). In these and similar cases, rule formation and development must be seen as a form of normatively guided problem- solving.

Power, knowledge, interest, and values are key ingredients in institutional transformation.

The power of elites to mobilize resources including wealth, legislative authority, and legal or coercive powers to maintain or change institutional orders is, of course, critical. But emerging groups and movements may also manage to mobilize sufficient power resources with which to challenge established elites, and to force or negotiate institutional change. The interaction between the establishment and challenging groups or movements is a major factor in institutional dynamics (Andersen and Burns, 1992; Flam, 1994). Such power mobilizations and conflicts are fueled by actors' material interests as well as ideal interests reflected in the particular paradigm to establish and maintain ”right and proper” institutional arrangements.

In times of social change, the circumstances and actions of individuals and groups come to deviate substantially from prescriptions and proscriptions of an institutionalized rule system. Since core rules are likely to be more deeply held, this generates a great deal of intra- and inter-personal conflict. Most men and women in Western societies have been raised (until rather recently) with a view of, for instance, the family as an institution in which the man provides economic support while the woman nutures children and manages the household. Yet people attempting to follow these rules often find them neither practical nor satisfying. The "breakdown" of the family as an

institution is an indication that the rules of the institution, as typically transmitted, internalized and codified, no longer ”fit”, or are compatible with, reality and necessity. Thus, individuals actively seek to modify and reform the rules, creating new institutional arrangements or redefining old ones.

Over time, a new paradigm of ”family” has emerged. This process is conflictual and often painful.

Institutionalized changes may be brought about by the direct action of social agents or by

the "selective forces" of social as well as physical environmnts. In the following discussion, we

focus on the human problem-solving and creative capacities. We examine which agents or

entrpreneurs initiate rule reform or, more radically, a paradigm shift, and why? Typically, the agents must have some basis of power or influence to bring about a paradigm shift or even changes in key rules, particularly the core rules through which a paradigm shift materializes. The particular basis of such power and the pattern of transformation may vary, as we discuss below.

Institutional entrepreneurs bring about changes in rules or, more radically, paradigm shift for a number of reasons (see section 3; the following are not mutually exclusive): (a) For instance, the agents of change adopt a new paradigm because they believe it to be a better basis to solve problems – more effective, more powerful – than the existing paradigm. (b) The new paradigm may be seen as providing greater status or more legitimacy, because it represents, for instance, a more advanced or “modern” form of institutional arrangement as opposed to ”traditional” or non-modern forms. (c) The actors who introduce a new paradigm strongly identify with it – and may derive a new identity and status from it – as in the case of many ”reform” and other social movements.

Actors who introduce and develop a new paradigm may not have intended to do so initially, but drift into it. For instance, an institutional elite or a decentralized agent adopts a new technology or technique which it considers to entail relatively minor changes in institutional procedures and rules. As additional problems emerge or are identified -- which cannot be effectively analyzed and dealt with within the framework of the established paradigm -- more rule changes and new

approaches are considered for adoption. But failures and anomalies may continue to occur and to accumulate, and the elite – or some key members in it develop a growing awareness of

performance failings and a critical judgment of the old paradigm. Receptivity to alternative paradigms – or, at least, to the abstract notion of a possible alternative – increases.

A paradigm shift implies a change in all or part of the core of an established paradigm, in particular, key organizing principles, normative ideas, and expectations regarding social

relationships. For instance, in the shift from a communist society to a more liberal society in a number of Eastern European countries, emphasis was put on introducing market principles as well as civil rights and democratic multi-party systems. Of course, the concrete realization of such a shift required learning the practicalities of making such institutions operate properly, that is, a certain development of the ”semantics” and ”pragmatics” of the new rule regimes also had to take place. In addition, shifts in discourse took place in connection with the transformation of several key

components (see section 5.2): (1) There was a shift in values and in defining the major problems facing the economy and society as a whole. Stress was placed on the problem of ”liberating

production” and ”increasing productivity and wealth” rather than on ”state ownership of the means

of production,” ”equality of distribution” or ”rational central control and planning.” Threats to a

well-functioning economy and society were no longer ”opposition to Socialism” and ”bourgeois

economic behavior,” but ”state ownership and controls” and ”monopoly powers” -- in command

economy and the one party state). (2) The solutions for the economy were market reforms in terms

of ”free enterprise,””privatization.” Solutions for the polity were ”democratization” and ”political

pluralism” in the form of independent, multiple parties and competitive politics. The role of the

state would become more regulative rather than controlling-in-detail political and economic

activities. In the case of the economy, for instance – rather than the party-state deciding the

quantities and distribution of goods and services as well as prices and wages – independent,

decentralized enterprises were to assume responsibility and authority to make plans and to

determine quantities and qualities of goods and services as well as prices. Thus, solutions to

economic problems were not expected solely or largely from the state, but from enterprises and

market mechanisms. State organized ”solutions” were to concern only a few, select areas such as

monetary policy, competition policy, research and development policy. The policy measures to be

taken operate rather indirectly (for instance, monetary policy) rather than directly and in detail

(price and wage controls, or detailed regulation of imports and exports). (3) Expertise was not

embodied in the political leadership or the ”vanguard party” which has a monopoly of truth but in specialized professional experts such as economists, lawyers, and business leaders.

Three major patterns of institutional innovation and change may be identified.

(I) Elite Adoption or Development of a New Paradigm and Institutional Arrangement. One common mode of institutional change takes place when authoritative or powerful agents acting within an institution or institutional arrangement reform it. This shift may take place through the elite or elite networks learning about and adopting a new institutional paradigm with its complex of beliefs, norms and values, organizing principles, and situational semantics and pragmatics. This implies, of course, new institutional conceptions and arrangements.

Part of such a learning process may be connected with the elite facing new types of problems, e.g.

connected with initiating a major project such as introducing radical new technologies or techniques (with unanticipated and unintended consequences), or dealing with new paricipants with different competencies or commitments than those recruited earlier. The emergence of such problems sets the stage for further problem-solving and institutional innovation. In some cases, the problems or problem situations appear intractable within the established paradigm and its institutional

arrangements. On the basis of critical discussion and subsequent social learning, the stage is set for a paradigm shift – that is, changes occurring on the level of principles, values, and general norms – which results in innovation and transformation of institutional arrangements.

One such example can be seen in the recent shift in the EU’s guiding principles for food policy from prioritizing market principles and goals to those of public health and consumer protection (Carson, 2000a). Numerous “technical” problems emerged during the deregulation associated with the establishment of the internal market in food and agricultural products. These necessitated the development of a number of new regulations at the European level, even under the guidance of a generally “free” market paradigm that emphasized the removal of regulatory

obstacles to trade. However, the number of technical problems emerging continued to expand, until significant food-related crises developed (the best known among these is “mad cow disease”, or BSE). As a result of these crises, the European Commission itself adopted a new paradigm – new by virtue of a reordering of guiding principles to place public health and consumer protection not only above free market deregulatory principles, but even establishing it as the means of protecting the progress made to date in establishing the internal market in food. These new priorities and the socially focused values of which they are a part have steadily been institutionalized in the

subsequent regulatory actions with regard to food, the clearest example of which was the

Commission’s response to discovery of dioxin contamination of Belgian poultry with an immediate ban on exports – quite different from the early treatment of the BSE case (in which the Commission sided initially with the British Government). Strong movement is now taking place toward the institutionalization of the reordered principles in the form of a reorganization of the Commission.

Primary responsibility and authority for dealing with food policy has been moved from the directorates dealing with agriculture and markets to a new directorate, Health and Consumer Protection. The proposed European Food Authority represents a further institutional expression of the new paradigm and its principles and values. Food policy in Europe is no longer seen as only, or even primarily, a commodity or market issue.

(II) Physical replacement of one elite by another with a different paradigm for institutional

arrangements. An agent or agents with a new or different paradigm come into a dominant position

– replacing an earlier elite – and introduce and institutionalize their own paradigm. These actors

closely identify with the new paradigm as a basis for constructing and operating an institutional

order and defining people’s roles and status. This may occur through force (coup d’etait, violent revolution), through democratic process (elections), or through demographic transition (e.g.

generational shift). In other words, a new group or coalition with a new paradigm or model of social organization appears on the scene and assumes a position of power, enabling it to bring about a substantial shift in the institutional paradigm and arrangements. The shift in power and authority favoring actors – a new elite or coalition of elites – with a different paradigm may be preceded by a breakdown in consensus among established power elites about the appropriate paradigm or about reform of the existing paradigm. Some groups may refuse to obey established authority or to adhere to the established rule regime and its organizing principles and norms. Such shifts are apparent in the case of social revolutions such as those that took place in Eastern Europe in 1989, bringing to power through negotiated settlements and elections groups advancing liberal market and political paradigms (Saxonberg, 2000).

(III) Diffusion and Adoption of a New Institutional Paradigm and Rule Systems. A new paradigm may be established through a process of diffusion in a community or social network; that is, there is a decentralized situation with multiple agents who enjoy control over their own situations and make independent decisions. In other words, learning and re-orientation take place not at the level of an institutional elite, but on a decentralized or local level. Yet, this process results on an aggregate level in a definitive transformation of a prevailing paradigm and its particular institutional

arrangements. The shifts need not be connected only with practical problems such as introducing new technologies and techniques, as part of ”modernization initiatives.” For instance, democratic concepts and norms have tended to spread from the political arena into other institutions such as the family, business enterprise, and health care system, implying that people have the right to know, to express themselves and to engage in deliberations on matters that concern them and influence their conditions of life. In general, new ideas diffuse through social networks, in some cases in

connection with economic and political crisis (see later discussion of the transformation of communist countries later). One recent example concerns the spread to health services across Western and even Central Europe of market oriented concepts along with new management and accounting techniques. This took place without solid evidence of their effectiveness, or knowledge about some of the more serious unintended negative consequences. Many health care units – and national policymakers – adopted such strategies in the context of economic pressures to reduce health care costs (and Welfare costs generally) because management consultants and other experts advocated the step. Also, the fact that the same step was being taken in nation after nation, and system after system, apparently reassured many that such an approach must be on the right track.

Cultural change, associated with an eventual paradigm shift, may occur in the most subtle and incremental ways. Thus, an institutional order may be eroded as a result of participating actors introducing and applying in an ad hoc way alien or inappropriate rules to activities in the domain.

For example, market concepts and rules such as profit-seeking strategies might be applied to what were previously ”inappropriate” domains such as the family, community, or health care system, and result in the weakening or breakdown of these institutions. By breakdown we mean the inability to maintain or reproduce the institutional core; this might entail, in particular, the loss of organizing principles or rules that define it or the disappearance of its most essential patterns of activity and social logic (provided, for instance, by particular principles of solidarity and justice).

Innovators and entrepreneurs – individuals and collective – initiate and carry through projects and play strategic roles in the shaping and reshaping of paradigms and particular

institutional arrangements and practices: whether economic, political, technological, or scientific

projects (Baumgartner and Burns, 1984; Andersen and Burns, 1992; Woodward et al, 1994). Such

agential driving forces are not restricted to business, government, or political elites initiating "from

above". In a wide variety of social processes, individual and collective agents make history but not according to conditions of their choosing.

7. Institutionalization of Paradigm Shifts and Institutional Innovations: Commitment, Social Controls, and Self-replication.

The maintenance and reproduction of an institutional paradigm and its concrete arrangements depend on sustaining the commitment of key actors and their knowledge of the paradigm and the situations in which it is to be implemented. In some cases, a large proportion of those involved must be committed and knowledgeable if successful reproduction of an institutional paradigm and its concrete arrangements is to take place. Reproduction also depends on the power and resource base which enable those committed to effectively execute and/or to enforce it. At the same time, the social and physical environments in which institutionalized activities are carried out operate selectively so that in a given time and place, institutional arrangements tend either to persist and be reproduced, or decline and disappear (Burns and Dietz, 1992a, 1992b; Dietz et al, 1990).

In other words, actors relative power resources, knowledge, and commitment play a key role in the maintainance and reproduction of a paradigm and its institutional order. Many paradigm changes and institutional innovations may be imagined or even initiated, but fail to be realized and reproduced. Consolidation and maintenance depend on there being a group of actors committed to the paradigm shift, whatever the basis of this commitment, who can mobilize resources and enforce or persuade adherence to the rules. In order to strengthen an institution and protect it from attack, one delivers concrete benefits (including security and predictability) to supporters and withdraws benefits and delivers concrete sanctions to those who oppose it. To strengthen a paradigm, one seeks to institutionalize it, but while it is the challenger, it must inspire supporters to forgo benefits and face possible hardships in pursuit of a greater principle - or greater promise down the road.

The development of cognitive capabilities as a sort of conceptual infrastructure, is equally as important as material resources and the capacity to sanction. The paradigm contains, on the one hand, knowledge about particular institutional organizing principles, relations, and norms to be implemented and maintained and, on the other, situational and technical knowledge enabling them to realize or implement the organizing principles and rules in relevant settings.

The processes of paradigm maintenance – or social reproduction as sociologists refer to it – may be organized by the ruling elite who allocates resources and direct and enforce maintenance.

Typically, institutional reproduction takes place through both elite direction as well as the active engagement of non-elite members. Thus, reproduction may also be organized with a broad spectrum of participants engaged in processes of knowledge transmission, socialization, sanctioning, and pressures to demonstrate institutional loyalty. In cases where elites and other participants (or more generally center and periphery groups) stand in opposition to one another, this generates not only tensions, but also uncertainty about the effective reproduction of an institutional order, opening up the possibility of future transformations.

In transformations brought about in connection with elite learning and re-orientation, the

elite manages the process of transformation themselves. In a deliberate way, they can determine its

speed, composition, and scope. They typically will make use of their powers to try to determine, for

instance, the scope and speed of introduction of the new arrangements (although they often fail, as

we suggest later). With elite replacement, the new elite struggles with the old elite and competes

with allies that participate in the transformation. There is often distrust of the old order and its

apparatus of social control and self-replication. As a result, the new leadership is likely to try to

quickly establish a variety of projects setting up entirely new institutional arrangements and

mechanisms to deliver on promises; they also institute systems of control, socialization, and

recruitment of loyalists into governance structures. Irrespective of such ambitions, they are often